JUSTICE R Raveendran in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy vs Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, AIR 2000 Kant 46, ILR 1999 KAR 2033 In view of the above, when a person who claims to be the owner or a person interested in an immovable property, finds that someone else has executed and registered a sale deed or other deed in regard to his property, claiming to be the owner or a person interested in the property, the appropriate course for him is to file a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. If he is satisfied such sale deed is executed by a person without any title and that the deed is void ab initio, he may even choose to ignore the same and leave it to the person claiming title under such deed to establish his title in appropriate proceedings. A Court of Law has the jurisdiction to declare a document to be void or even cancel a document. But under no circumstances, a person claiming to be the owner of a property or a holder of a property, can require the Registering Authority to cancel the registration of a document or to cancel the entry made in Book No. 1 in regard to a registered document or to delete or remove the entry made in the indexes relating to Book No. 1. The Registering Officer has no such power. Consequently, the question of the Registering Officer deleting any entry either from the Indexes of Book No. 1 or the extracts therefrom contained in the Encumbrance Certificate by holding transaction covered by a registered instrument is illegal or void, does not arise.

JUSTICE R Raveendran, JUSTICE K Manjunath in the case of Veerabhadrappa And Anr. vs Jagadishgouda ILR 2003 KAR 3042, 2002 (5) KarLJ 55 It is well-settled that when a document is duly presented for registration (within the time prescribed), if its registration is refused or if its registration is kept pending, and thereafter the document is registered either on the direction of the Registrar or competent Court or on the Sub-Registrar satisfying himself that there is no impediment for registration, the registered document will operate, not from the date of actual registration, but from the date when the deed was executed. This principle can be gathered from the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (Sections 47 and 75) and several decisions the earliest of which are that of the Madras High Court in the case of Venkatarama Reddi v. Pillati Rama Reddy, ILR 1916(40) Mad. 204 and of the Privy Council in the case of Chhotey Lal v. Collector of Moradabad, AIR 1922 PC 279 : ILR 1922(44) All. 514. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Azeezulla Sheriff alias Anwar Pasha and Ors. v. Bhab-huthimul, 1972(2) Mys. L.J. 408 : AIR 1973 Mys. 276, held thus: "Sub-section (3) of Section 75, only determines the deemed date of registration in respect of documents compulsorily registered in pursuance of an order made under Section 75(1). Sub-section (3) of Section 75 does not deal with the effect of registration of a document. That topic is dealt with by Section 47 which states that once a document is registered, it shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its -registration. The expression "not from the time of its registration" used in Section 47 makes it clear that the date of registration, whether actual or the deemed date under Section 75(3), has no relevance whatsoever for determining the time from which the registered document operates. Once the document is registered, whether it is on admission of execution under Section 35 or by way of compulsory registration under Part XII of the Act, the provisions of Section 47 are attracted for the purpose of determining the time from which the registered document operates". This was reiterated in the case of Rathnakar v. H.S. Madhava Rao and Ors., 1990(4) Kar. L.J. 541 : ILR 1991 Kar. 2190

JUSTICE R Raveendran, JUSTICE K Manjunath in the case of Veerabhadrappa And Anr. vs Jagadishgouda ILR 2003 KAR 3042, 2002 (5) KarLJ 55 When registration of a document is ordered to be kept pending, or when registration of a document is refused, and subsequently such document is ordered to be registered, such registration takes effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration. That would mean that the registration relates back to the date of execution. The well-settled principle is that if there is a competition between registered documents relating to the same property, the document first in order of time has priority over the other, though the former document may not have been registered until after the latter.

JUSTICE R Raveendran, JUSTICE K Manjunath in the case of Veerabhadrappa And Anr. vs Jagadishgouda ILR 2003 KAR 3042, 2002 (5) KarLJ 55 The role played by the Sub-Registrar in registering a document is rather limited. He has no power or authority to examine the rival claims as to whether a sale deed presented for registration is really a sale deed or not, nor is he empowered to grant any declarations in regard to binding nature of documents.

Justice B Singh, Justice J Shety In S. Sreenivasa Rao v. The Sub-Registrar (Headquarters), Mysore, ILR 1990 KAR 3740, 1990 (2) KarLJ 258 Court held that if the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules and other laws are complied with, the Sub-Registrar is bound to register the document and no direction can be issued to the Sub-Registrar not to register the document. It was also held that if any person is interested in contending that the registered document is invalid or illegal for any reason, he has to question the validity before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings. …. We also find no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 which obliges the Sub-Registrar to act upon any such direction and/or to investigate at the stage of registration of a document itself, the title of the party executing the document. We are, therefore of the view that if a document is presented for registration by the executant, and in doing so, the executant complies with all the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the document unless he exercises that discretion pursuant to any provision in the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law or Rule having the force of law. The mere registration of a document is by itself not a proof of its validity, neither does it follow that the executant had title to the property, he seeks to dispose of under the document. Matters such as relating to title have to be decided before the appropriate forum. If any person is interested in contending that any particular document executed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908 is invalid or illegal for any reason whatsoever, he !s certainly at liberty to question the validity of the document, the title of the executant, and such other questions before the proper forum in an appropriate proceeding.”

Rule 145 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, provides thus: "Protests against registration of documents.--The Registering Officer should not entertain any petition protesting against registration of document. Such petitions, when insisted should be received and returned immediately with an appropriate endorse ment and no record should be kept in the office. Since these petitions are not to be filed, their copies cannot be granted".

Justice K.L. Manjunath, J. in the case of Leelavathi vs M. Neelakanta Naidu, Reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4637, 2006 (6) KarLJ 617 …….if any document is registered behind the back of the true owner in a clandestine manner, owner of a property is not expected to go before the Sub-Register' s Office and verify whether any third party has executed a document in respect of his property to a third party. In other words, owner of the property cannot keep a watch or stand before the Sub-Register like a Watch-dog to verify whether any parson has executed any document conveying his property to a third party. From reading of Article 59, the Court has to hold that the limitation run from the date of the knowledge. Therefore, in order to find out the actual date of knowledge, the evidence is required to be recorded by the Trial Court as it is a mixed question of fact and law. The date of knowledge is a question of fact and without there being an evidence, the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation.

Justice V G Gowda in the case of Sulochanamma vs H. Nanjundaswamy 2001 (1) KarLJ 215 The Sub-Registrar was entrusted with the duty of registering the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act and he was not authorised to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents presented before him. If the documents are bogus or false, the party affected by it will have the right to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings to prosecute the party who tries to have benefit from such document and also to safeguard his right, title and interest. It was not for either the Tahsildar or the Sub-Registrar to express opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents unless called upon by the Court of law or any other authorised investigating agency. There was no occassion for the Sub-Registrar to refer the document to the Tahsildar when presented for the purpose of registration. Thus, both the Tahsildar and the Sub-Registrar have exceeded their jurisdiction in the matter in submitting his report regarding registration of the document and upon such report the second respondent should not have made an endorsement on the document and refused to register the document by him.

No comments: